Over the past six months, a sub-committee of the Austin City Planning Commission’s Codes and Ordinances committee explored amending Austin’s noise ordinance--specifically as it relates to outdoor music. This is a recurring issue in Bouldin as entrepreneurs increasingly capitalize on our commercial corridors' popularity as "entertainment districts".
In late September, the subcommittee submitted a draft proposal for a revised ordinance that would modestly reduce the allowable volume of outdoor live music and require a buffer zone between the music venue and the nearest residential home. However, the committee elected to punt these proposed changes to City Council with the recommendation that it appoint a task force to sort out the problem and write final ordinance revisions.
In its deliberations, the committee compared Austin’s noise ordinance to those of over a dozen US cities including Los Angeles, New York City, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Portland and Minneapolis. Whereas most of the comparative cities’ ordinances set noise level limits between 58 and 75 decibels (dB). Austin’s legal limit is the highest at 85 dB.
As a basis for its discussions, the committee tried to define noise, as several sample cities did. San Antonio defines noise as: “any loud, irritating, vexing, or disturbing sound originating from a nearby property under separate ownership which causes injury, discomfort, or distress to a person of reasonable nervous sensibilities.” .” Denver, CO says noise is: “sound that is unwanted and which causes or tends to cause adverse psychological or physiological effects on human beings.”
Several of the sample cities went further, addressing the civic question of why a business should presume the right to profit from amplified music against the will or life qualities of its neighbors. Minneapolis’ ordinance states: “Individuals are not required to welcome unwanted noise into their homes and there simply is no right to force unwanted noise into the home of an unwilling listener.” The City of Los Angeles says:” While recognizing that certain uses of amplified sound are protected by the constitutional rights of free speech and assembly, the Council nevertheless feels obligated to reasonably regulate the use of amplified sound in order to protect the correlative constitutional rights of the citizens to privacy and freedom from unnecessary public nuisance.”
In a town that prides itself in its civic participation and democratic process, this basic civil right seems to have been usurped by Austin’s self-declared title as “the Live Music Capital of the World.”
Noise solutions committee member and Austin Music Commission representative Teresa Ferguson argued that improved enforcement methods, combined with live music business owner counseling and sound buffering methodologies proffered by the Music Commission should be explored and implemented before reducing maximum volume levels. She implied that reducing dB ceilings would result in businesses shutting down, musicians put out of work, and the music industry’s multi-million dollar contribution to the City’s annual income would be significantly impaired. She never explained how reducing music volume directly correlates with reduced venues’ attendance and income, musicians’ booking and employment, or tourist and local music-lover dollars.
One of the solutions the committee did tackle was improved Austin Police Department (APD) enforcement of the existing ordinance. For several years, APD only had two decibel meters, only a few officers were trained in their use, and often both devices were inoperable and in the repair shop. Committee member APD officer Michael Jung reported the department now has 21 of the decibel meters, has trained more officers in their use, has streamlined its methodology to determine music venues’ compliance, and since the beginning of September has been implementing these improved methods in responding to resident noise complaints.
However APD data revealed that most of the complaints as measured by the new decibel meters showed that nearly all the irritant music venues were within the present ordinance limit of 85 dB. So better enforcement did nothing but frustrate residents who complain only to find that the source of their irritation is perfectly legal.
Ultimately, Bouldinites must draw their own conclusion on whether or not a business should profit by filling our air with their noise.
Committee member Scott Trainer, representing neighborhoods, suggested that if you find that the noise that fills your air and your home is an irritant, then be sure to call APD to report the disturbance and ask the dispatcher to log your complaint. Because in a contentious and emotional issue like noise in the live music Capitol of weird, city lawmakers need quantitative proof that noise is even an issue, much less to make substantive changes to the ordinance.-- Cory Walton
align=center>Home